PSYC3002 Lecture 7: Stereotyping, Prejudice & Discrimination PDF

The Social Psychology of Group Processes & Social Change PSYC3002 Lecture 7: Stereotyping, Prejudice & Discrimination Dr Charlie Crimston [email protected] THE STORY SO FAR… ▪ Intergroup & intragroup theories ▪ The social identity approach ▪ Social identity change ▪ Ingroup bias & misinfo...

The Social Psychology of Group Processes & Social Change PSYC3002 Lecture 7: Stereotyping, Prejudice & Discrimination Dr Charlie Crimston [email protected] THE STORY SO FAR… ▪ Intergroup & intragroup theories ▪ The social identity approach ▪ Social identity change ▪ Ingroup bias & misinformation ▪ Deviance & dissent TODAY… ▪ Experiencing discrimination ▪ What perpetuates prejudice? ▪ Coping with discrimination ▪ How has prejudice evolved? ▪ Is contact the solution? ▪ Indirect contact THESE ARE OVERLAPPING, BUT NOT EQUIVALENT, CONCEPTS People can be prejudiced without discriminating. Prejudice Not all stereotypes are rooted in prejudices. Not all stereotypes lead to discriminatory behavior Stereotyping Discrimination Sometimes discriminatory behavior comes, not from the attempt to harm, but from showing favoritism. WHERE DO PREJUDICES COME FROM? Social Sources Motivational Sources Cognitive Sources THE EXPERIENCE OF DISCRIMINATION THE EXPERIENCE OF DISCRIMINATION ▪ Meta-analysis by Schmitt et al. (2014) - the relationship between discrimination and mental health outcomes (self-esteem, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and life satisfaction, N = 328 studies). ▪ Overall, negative and significant correlation between perceived discrimination and mental health (r =-.23). ▪ Relationship even stronger for groups that face discrimination that is more controllable and legitimized ▪ Weight prejudice studies tended to produce larger effects than racism studies WHY DOES EXPOSURE TO DISCRIMINATION HARM WELL-BEING? ▪ Stigma and discrimination reduces access to fundamental services employment, housing and education ▪ There are also other reasons why stigma negatively affects health — including physiological and psychological in nature (i.e., stress). ▪ Discrimination represents a significant stressor that challenges individuals’ wellbeing in at least three ways. WHY DOES EXPOSURE TO DISCRIMINATION HARM WELL-BEING? ▪ First, being the target of stigma and discrimination triggers a direct stress response in the body. This includes elevated blood pressure, increased cortisol levels and increased heart rate ▪ Second, stigma affects health more indirectly if this physiological stress response is sustained, as causes wear and tear on the body. Over time, chronic stress is associated with an increase in vulnerability to physical and mental illness. ▪ Finally, stigma impacts negatively on health because individuals cope with the stress associated with discrimination and stigma by engaging in behaviours that negatively affect health (e.g., drugs, alcohol, exercise less) LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER (LGBT+) ▪ Higher rate of psychiatric illness among LGBT+, fully mediated by discrimination ▪ Higher suicide risk among LGBT+, partially mediated by perceived discrimination ▪ Nearly half of all transgender Australians have attempted suicide ▪ Rates of mood disorders, substance abuse & psychiatric illness increased in regions with antiLGBT+ laws ▪ Both LGBT and their families showed improved mental and physical health in regions where marriage equality passed WHAT PERPETUATES PREJUDICE? SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES Snyder & Swann (1978) led interviewers to believe that the person who they were interviewing (over telephone) was an extrovert or an introvert. They were then required to select from a set list of interview questions. Those who thought the person was an extrovert mostly asked questions that would be likely to reveal these tendencies (e.g., “what would you do if you wanted to liven things up in a party?”). Those who thought the person was an introvert primarily asked questions that would be likely to reveal these tendencies (e.g., “what factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?”) SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES In a follow-up experiment, the responses of the target were taped, and a fresh set of participants were asked to rate the interviewee. Interviewees who had been placed in the extrovert condition were rated as more extroverted than were those who had been placed in the introvert condition. In other words, the expectancies of the interviewer had created a reality – if you talk to somebody expecting them to be introverted, they become introverted. Observer “believes” actor is an extrovert Actor’s behaviour is interpreted through the lens of this expectation Actor is treated as an extrovert Actor’s behaviour is constrained so that it becomes difficult to behave in ways other than being extroverted Actor’s behaviour becomes more extroverted Actor perceives self as extroverted SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) administered an IQ test to school children and told their teachers that a particular group of 20 students had been identified as “bloomers” … people who were particularly likely to show development in the future. In fact, the 20 students were chosen randomly. What impact did this false feedback have? SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES 30 25 20 Academic Gain "Bloomers" 15 10 Non-bloomers 5 0 1st year 2nd year STEREOTYPE THREAT ▪ Experienced when people feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their group ▪ Women can’t drive ▪ White people can’t dance ▪ Social psychologists are not funny Cultural Stereotypes Stereotype Threat Performance deficits STEREOTYPE THREAT Spencer et al. (1999) got women and men to do a math test … consistent with the stereotype, men did better than women on the test. In a follow-up experiment, participants did two tests: one in which they were told that men and women typically performed differently on the test, and one in which participants were told that the test typically did not reveal sex differences. 30 25 20 men women maths score 15 10 5 0 no difference gender difference STEREOTYPE THREAT Stone et al. (1999) had white and black participants perform a sports task (mini golf). In some conditions the test was framed as a test of “natural ability”, in others it was framed as a test of “sports intelligence” 28 27 26 25 performance 24 23 22 21 20 Blacks Whites natural ability sports intelligence NOTE: high scores mean worse performance STEREOTYPE THREAT The presumed reason for these effects is anxiety … but evidence for this is not always straightforward. As it turns out, when self-report measures of anxiety are used there is little evidence it’s playing a role. But when more subtle measures of anxiety are used (e.g., non-verbal anxiety, blood pressure) the causal role of anxiety is more likely to emerge. STEREOTYPE THREAT Bosson et al. (2004) had gay or straight men playing with children. In half the conditions the participants’ sexuality was primed (potentially invoking stereotype threat) and in the other half sexuality was not primed. During the play session, neutral observers rated the participants on signs of nervousness and childcare performance. STEREOTYPE THREAT 0.6 0.4 0.2 performance 0 straight gay -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 no prime prime STEREOTYPE THREAT 2.3 2.2 2.1 2 nonverbal 1.9 anxiety 1.8 1.7 straight gay 1.6 1.5 no prime prime This is despite the fact gay and straight participants did not differ in the extent to which they said they felt anxious in a questionnaire. STEREOTYPE THREAT Given the ambiguous results on anxiety, others have sought to find more measurable explanations. Stereotype threat has been associated with: Trying too hard Withdrawing effort Straining working memory capacity Evaluation apprehension Diminished expectations for performance Self-doubt / negative thinking Self-handicapping Domain dis-identification (e.g., dis-identification as a “math person”) HOW DO PEOPLE COPE WITH DISCRIMINATION? CONFRONTING DISCRIMINATION ▪ When asked what they would do if they came across an example of sexism, women tend to overestimate their willingness to confront the sexism head-on … THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR THIS… Kaiser & Miller (2001) led White participants to believe another research participant (a Black male) had taken a test assessing future career success. After completing the test, an experimenter had explained there was some chance that a prejudiced judge would evaluate the test … that all of the 8 judges were White, and that either none, four, or all of them had a history of prejudice. The Black participant had then received a fail on the test and either attributed their grade to discrimination or to poor performance. DV = Participants rated how much they liked the Black man. 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 likeability 4.2 4.1 4 3.9 attribution to discrimination attribution to poor performance NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING ATTRIBUTIONS TO DISCRIMINATION People seem to understand the negative consequences of claiming discrimination – for example women are more likely to report “discrimination” when on their own or with other women than when they’re with men (Stangor et al., 2001). BELIEVED, IGNORED, RIDICULED? HOW HAS PREJUDICE EVOLVED? “OLD-FASHIONED” RACISM ▪ People are becoming less willing to endorse items reflecting “old-fashioned” racism ▪ Explicit, aggressive, blatant racism “MODERN” RACISM ▪ Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter (1991) ▪ “Modern” Racism ▪ Denial that racialized people are actually discriminated against ▪ Antagonism towards minority groups ▪ Resentment of perceived “special favours” “MODERN” RACISM ▪ Sample items: ▪ “Discrimination is no longer a problem in Australian society” ▪ “First Nation’s people are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights” ▪ “Over the past few years, the government and news media have shown more respect to immigrants than they deserve.” ▪ Predicts discrimination! ▪ Preference for white job candidates over Black candidates ▪ Willingness to hire an Indigenous job candidate LIFE EXPECTANCY IN AUSTRALIA SUICIDE INCARCERATION “OLD FASHIONED” SEXISM ▪ Example items: ▪ “Women are just as capable of thinking logically as men” (R) ▪ “I would be equally comfortable having a woman or a man as a manager” (R) ▪ “Women are generally not as smart as men” “MODERN” SEXISM ▪ Example items: ▪ “Women often miss out on good jobs due to sexual discrimination” ▪ “It is easy to understand why women’s groups are still concerned about societal limitations of women’s opportunities“ (R) ▪ “Over the past few years, the government and news media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is warranted by women’s actual experiences” “OLD FASHIONED” AND “MODERN” SEXISM “Old Fashioned” Sexism ▪ Endorsement of traditional gender roles ▪ Differential treatment of men and women ▪ Stereotypes about lesser female competence “Modern” Sexism ▪ Denial of discrimination ▪ Antagonism towards women’s demands ▪ Lack of support for policies designed to help women DISCRIMINATION: SINCLAIR & KUNDA, 2000 ▪ The female stereotype includes incompetence, or low skills and abilities, especially compared to men. ▪ Q: In what circumstances will people apply this stereotype? ▪ A: When application of the stereotype will benefit their self-image. EXAMPLE: EVALUATIONS OF PROFESSORS Course evaluations of female instructors are more influenced by student’s grades than course evaluations of male instructors. When students do poorly in a course, they rate their female instructors significantly worse than students who do well. When students do poorly, they rate their female instructors significantly worse than their male instructors. 85 80 75 Male Instructor Female Instructor 70 65 60 High Grade Low Grade Sinclair & Kunda, 2000 GENDER PAY GAP HOUSEHOLD LABOUR AND CARE GIVING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN CONTACT IS THE SOLUTION, RIGHT? INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY Contact effects replicated: ◦ Across a range of nations, samples ◦ Correlationally, experimentally INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY Contact effects replicated: ◦ Across a range of nations, samples ◦ Correlationally, experimentally Superficial contact works Intimate contact especially effective e.g. cross-group friendships INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY Contact effects replicated: ◦ Across a range of nations, samples ◦ Correlationally, experimentally Superficial contact works Intimate contact especially effective e.g. cross-group friendships Contact effects emerge in many domains of prejudice e.g., racism, sexual prejudice, ageism, ableism INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY Contact effects emerge irrespective of initial level of prejudice ◦ Contact works even for people high in social dominance orientation and authoritarianism INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY Contact effects emerge irrespective of initial level of prejudice ◦ Contact works even for people high in social dominance orientation and authoritarianism Contact mechanisms: Intergroup Contact  Anxiety  Intergroup Empathy  Intergroup Trust Prejudice Reduction INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY ▪ In order for contact to work, we must have: ▪ Support of institutional authorities/leadership ▪ Equal status between groups ▪ Common interest, common goals. 63 INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY The contact caveat (Barlow et al., 2012) INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY The contact caveat (Barlow et al., 2012) Contact can be non-ideal or even negative Stronger link between negative contact → higher prejudice than traditional link between positive contact → lower prejudice INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY: Pettigew & Tropp, 2006; 2011) 66 THE BURDEN OF CONTACT ▪ Emotional labour = monitoring behaviours, acting against true emotions ▪ Originally research based on people working in the service industry ▪ Emotional labour → burnout (Jeung et al., 2018) ▪ Burnout → decreased wellbeing (Campbell et al., 2006) INDIRECT CONTACT Vicarious contact Observing a member of one’s own group positively interact with a member of an outgroup ◦ Driven by social learning (observational learning) INDIRECT CONTACT Imagined contact Imagining a positive interaction with a member of an outgroup ◦ More detailed the imagination exercise → stronger effect INDIRECT CONTACT Parasocial contact Having “contact” with members of an outgroup via media (e.g., film, TV) INDIRECT CONTACT Parasocial contact Having “contact” with members of an outgroup via media (e.g., film, TV) ◦ Representation is important for both marginalised group members’ wellbeing AND prejudice reduction INDIRECT CONTACT (imagined/vicarious/parasocial) Increasing knowledge about different cultural groups (outgroups); Breaking down incompatible beliefs and barriers Increasing empathy/decreasing anxiety Shaping ingroup and outgroup norms Redefining group boundaries “us” & “them” to “we” Reduced prejudice/discrimination Engage social action support 72 EVERY SINGLE WORD SPOKEN… What kind of characters are they playing? How much do we learn about these characters? How stereotypical are these characters? How unique are these characters? Is their marginalised identity a nonissue? REPRESENTATION MATTERS NOT HOPELESS… ▪ Representation and exposure to the lives of marginalised groups through storytelling ▪ Changing norms in how we respond to instances of discrimination and prejudice ▪ Norm where reporting is seen as the right thing to do ▪ Members of dominant group highlighting prejudice & discrimination to create change PREJUDICE REDUCTION AS SOCIAL CHANGE? ▪ Micro-level prejudice reduction strategies may be ineffective on their own – connected to wider society low status/disadvantage. ▪ Need political social action from existing political and government authorities or from individuals and social movements working for change. ▪ The ultimate challenge for reducing prejudice and discrimination may involve creating and facilitating the conditions under which such action can take place. “ Such massive intergroup inequalities create a basis in ‘social reality’ for stereotyping and discrimination. When prejudice is based on such social realities, interventions at the individual and interpersonal levels will merely transform crude, old-fashioned forms of prejudice into more subtle ‘modern’ or ‘symbolic’ forms… The challenge facing reduction of prejudice in the US, and other countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where minority status is powerfully correlated with socio-economic deprivation, lies first and most fundamentally in social interventions to reduce poverty and break entrenched cycles of deprivation and despair.” Duckitt, 2001 ▪ Q1. What are some modern-day examples of stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination in Australian society? REVISION QUESTIONS ▪ Q2. How is discrimination linked to well-being? ▪ Q3. What is stereotype threat? ▪ Q4. How has stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination evolved over time? ▪ Q5. Does intergroup contact work to reduce discrimination? ▪ Q6. How can storytelling reduce stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination? 80 SOME READINGS ▪ MacInnis, C. C., & Page-Gould, E. (2015). How Can Intergroup Interaction Be Bad If Intergroup Contact Is Good? Exploring and Reconciling an Apparent Paradox in the Science of Intergroup Relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 307327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568482 81 NEXT WEEK: INGROUP NORMS & EXTREME BEHAVIOUR